not so hidden agenda
If you re honest do you not see hidden agendas also among the "antiwarries". Yes, there is a hidden agenda (or rather, not very hidden because it is loudly proclaimed at all of the huge anti-war demonstrations). Instead of spending $200 plus billion on a grab for oil at the same time Bush is cutting spending on schools, health care, transportation, sewage and water infrastructure, environment safe guards, parks, social services and many many other areas. the US should be spending its tax money on the later rather than the former. There is no free lunch. This war is costing the US dearly. It is a transfer of wealth from the people to the owners of the large arms manufacturers, oil monopolies and military service companies, many of them associated with the Bush/Cheney gang. Anyone who thinks this threatened war is about anything else is rather naive. Bush is even cutting money out of care for the veterans of previous wars. I think the figure for cuts in Veterans hospitals is something like $250 million in this year alone.
Re: intelligence?
Has anyone ever observed guinea fowl that were actually raised by parent guinea fowl? I wonder if they are so apparently dumb because they are missing the transference of guinea fowl culture (as in, how dumb would human babies grow up to be if they were raised without human adults or access to human culture)/ At least this might be one explanation of their apparent idiocy. How do these birds survive the predators in their native Africa? They sure don't last very long on our farm in Virginia (though we do have two who have been around for several years while others have come and eventually been eaten by various predators.
Re: In light of the Heightened Security State here in the Homeland, read this:
And yes it is true that Al Qaeda was heavily involved in the terrorist war against the Serbs as stated in Allan's post. And yes Clinton and Albright did side with the Islamic terrorists as part of breaking up Yugoslavia for the benefit of the Euro. They conducted a high altitude bombing of the Serbian civilian population which is technically a war crime. Where was the Hollywood peace movement then? Oh, then it was Clinton's war. I think the truth is Al Qaeda was started up by US/Saudi money way before Clinton in the previous Afgan war during the Reagan/Bush Sr. era. Alan's facts are, of course, correct.
Re: csa names
And, of course, Allan, I should tell you about our little adventure with 'the hunt' and how they burnt down the house we were living in (long term house sitting) while we were at work because I wouldn't let 'the hunt' cross the property.
Re: csa names
Allan, You sure don't know your celebrities and where they live. Sissy Spacek lives outside of Charlottesville, VA. I know this because when we had Komondors 10-20 years ago her husband came up and bought a couple from a litter. As far as other actors and the ilk, this isn't great country for them. Liz Taylor lived near by when she was married to John Warner but she quickly bored of being a Senator's wife and the local horsey scene. Mostly. the large estates belong to old money, the sort of inbred person that was born with money and in turn never did a thing with their life except ride a horse after a pack of hounds that are yapping at a scrawny fox. I imagine your middleburg market won't be those people. They aren't competent enough to buy food to feed themselves, they need someone else to feed them. Your market will most likely be the hangers on and the near do well (is that the correct term?) The people who own the shops that service the landed gentry, and the people who have enough for 10 acres and can afford to build a house of questionable taste with large pillars, brick facades and designs that below in another country and another time. You know, retired football players, computer executives who got out when the getting was good, and white collar crooks of various descriptions. My what a fine county you have moved to.
Re: csa names
Title: Re: csa names
Hello Jane,
I'm over in Virginia, between
Haymarket and The Plains. Allan's new place is going to be just
down the road from me, I think.
--
(\
(\
(\ (\
(\
{|||8-
{|||8-
{|||8-
{|||8-
{|||8-
(/
(/ (/
(/ (/
http://www.bullrunfarm.com/
Re: csa names
My concern about CSA is the Community part. We all agree that community (whatever that means) is a major part of what we are striving for. It is just my practical, hands-on experience, that a lot of the community that is talked about in the csa literature is pie in the sky. It doesn't work, at least around here, on the ground. We need to be thinking of different ways of creating community besides a core group and work shares. (I'm sorry, having a justice department lawyer on a core group trying to do my planning for me is insulting and a waste of my time. I don't advise him with his briefs and anyway, he wouldn't take my advise).
Re: csa names
Allan, I disagree about that post article (of course I don't have it in front of me to quote) but I think the author defined CSA for his readers and he defined it as getting fresh vegetables straight from the farmer without going to a farmers' market. I agree, those people that called me from the article didn't mean what you mean by CSA. And without the article to 'define' the term for them they wouldn't have had a clue wether CSA meant Confederate Soldiers of America or Confectionairy Students Association. I use the term subscription vegetables because, while I think it is a bad term, I always assumed it was more intuitive. My wife, however says that I'm wrong. She says that only slightly more people understand subscription vegetables than understand CSA. She says we still need to find a better term or spend several hundred million on an ad campaign educating people about our definitions.
Re: Leigh: What makes a successful CSA operator?
I major share is a 2 person (after all this is DC the home of the original young professional) and it costs $330. My help last year was paid $10. This year my returning help will get $12.
Re: Leigh: What makes a successful CSA operator?
I still don't understand why you feel that the intern system is exploitive? (Oops! Maybe you, like I sometime do, feel that it is exploitive of the farm and the farmer!) Don't you think there is a fair exchange when you actually pay someone to demonstrate to them for a season how to get into the good life that you have outlined above? You know, Allan, you are probably right. It's just not a model I enjoy. I've seen CSA's who have their interns out there living in tents, expecting 60 hours a week from them, and then not fairly paying them for their labor. But then, on the other hand, when we had interns on our farm, I could never work our interns like that and while the interns were generally good people (some weren't) the amount and quality of work I got wasn't satisfactory. I guess I'm just locked into the concept and model of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I want workers who come to work expecting to work, and expecting to get paid fairly for their work.
Re: Leigh: What makes a successful CSA operator?
Allan, How about --- I have happy subscribers. And I'm happy doing what I'm doing. I feel good about my farming practices, and my subscribers do to (at least that's what they tell me). Even the people who do not renew these days tell me how much they liked the program (but as you know, as CSA is not for everyone -or even for half the people), I have a good relationship with a large core of my subscribers. They like me and I like them. I produce a remarkable amount of wholesome food in a sustainable manner on land that most people would think was not good farmland. I feel reasonably at peace with my environment (though the ever encroaching city is a problem). With the addition of a Great Pyrenees into our family the deer have decided that it is not worth the risk involved in eating our vegetables. The longer I do it, farm, the less stressed I am. I get 4 months off in the winter to pursue my other interests. The people that help me farm get paid a liveable wage. More than they would get paid doing similar work. I don't feel I'm exploiting people (I did when I used interns). In other words, I live a lifestyle that is comfortable, doing what is basically good. Without exploiting others or being exploited myself. I think you get the gist. I'm supposed to talk about this very subject for half an hour at the future harvest conference tonight up in Hagerstown.
Re: FW: CSA's
Leigh- A lot of my concerns fall back to my belief in the inspired > validity of 3-Fold Economics. I believe that farming has no place in > the economic realm and has suffered tremendously because of efforts of both governments and farmers to put it in the economic realm. Intuitively, for me, farming is NOT a business and should have a different relationship with the community. I really can't answer this of a philosophical basis, but only on a practical one. I grow vegetables, the most wholesome ones I can, using the most environmentally sustainable methods i can, on the land that we live on. Unlike most CSA's in the DC area, I am successful at it. I grow these vegetables, not just for my family but for almost 1000 other people. Now, since those 1000 people exchange money with me, money that I need to grow the vegetables and provide the things I don't produce myself for my family, that seems to be an economic relationship. Now, in a theoretical world, sort of like the positive one presented in 'Woman on the Edge of Time' there would be a community based society with food production at its base. But that's not what's out there. There is very little community. So, what I have said to Alan and to just about anyone who will listen, 'CSA theory should be on the ground, experience based.' Most that I have read isn't. It seems to me that the majority of the people who write theory haven't actually, successfully practiced what they preach, practiced it as the means of supporting their family and farm for lets say a decade or so. (but, of course I could be wrong -won't be the first time). Now, with that said, I believe that a CSA needs to provide a sense of community and connection between the farm, the farmer, the laborers (and I have real problems with the intern relationship that most CSA's use) and the eaters. But that's another post, and probably a book, however, I doubt a book I will be able to write because I spend my time being a dirt under my nails, professional,grower of vegetables.
CSA
Title: CSA Alan, I'm sure you've seen this definition of csa's from the usda page. what do you think? by Suzanne DeMuth September 1993 "Since our existence is primarily dependent on farming, we cannot entrust this essential activity solely to the farming population-- just 2% of Americans. As farming becomes more and more remote from the life of the average person, it becomes less and less able to provide us with clean, healthy, lifegiving food or a clean, healthy, lifegiving environment. A small minority of farmers, laden with debt and overburdened with responsibility, cannot possibly meet the needs of all the people. More and more people are coming to recognize this, and they are becoming ready to share agricultural responsibilities with the active farmers." (1) Community supported agriculture (CSA) is a new idea in farming, one that has been gaining momentum since its introduction to the United States from Europe in the mid-1980s. The CSA concept originated in the 1960s in Switzerland and Japan, where consumers interested in safe food and farmers seeking stable markets for their crops joined together in economic partnerships. Today, CSA farms in the U.S., known as CSAs, currently number more than 400. Most are located near urban centers in New England, the Mid-Atlantic states, and the Great Lakes region, with growing numbers in other areas, including the West Coast. In basic terms, CSA consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the farmland becomes, either legally or spiritually, the community's farm, with the growers and consumers providing mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food production. Typically, members or "share-holders" of the farm or garden pledge in advance to cover the anticipated costs of the farm operation and farmer's salary. In return, they receive shares in the farm's bounty throughout the growing season, as well as satisfaction gained from reconnecting to the land and participating directly in food production. Members also share in the risks of farming, including poor harvests due to unfavorable weather or pests. By direct sales to community members, who have provided the farmer with working capital in advance, growers receive better prices for their crops, gain some financial security, and are relieved of much of the burden of marketing. Although CSAs take many forms, all have at their center a shared commitment to building a more local and equitable agricultural system, one that allows growers to focus on land stewardship and still maintain productive and profitable small farms. As stated by Robyn Van En [1948-1997], a leading CSA advocate, "...the main goal...of these community supported projects is to develop participating farms to their highest ecologic potential and to develop a network that will encourage and allow other farms to become involved." (2) CSA farmers typically use organic or biodynamic farming methods, and strive to provide fresh, high-quality foods. More people participate in the farming operation than on conventional farms, and some projects encourage members to work on the farm in exchange for a portion of the membership costs. Most CSAs offer a diversity of vegetables, fruits, and herbs in season; some provide a full array of farm produce, including shares in eggs, meat, milk, baked goods, and even firewood. Some farms offer a single commodity, or team up with others so that members receive goods on a more nearly year-round basis. Some are dedicated to serving particular community needs, such as helping to enfranchise homeless persons. Each CSA is structured to meet the needs of the participants, so many variations exist, including thelevel of financial commitment and active participation by the shareholders; financing, land ownership, and legal form of the farm operation; and details of payment plans and food distribution systems. CSA is sometimes known as "subscription farming," and the two terms have been used on occasion to convey the same basic principles. In other cases, however, use of the latter term is intended to convey philosophic and practical differences in a given farm operation. Subscription farming (or marketing) arrangements tend to emphasize the economic benefits, for the farmer as well as consumer, of a guaranteed, direct market for farm products, rather than the con- cept of community-building that is the basis of a true CSA. Growers typically contract directly with customers, who may be called "members," and who have agreed in advance to buy a minimum amount of produce at a fixed price, but who have little or no investmentin the farm itself. An example of one kind of subscription farm, which predates the first CSAs in this country, is the clientele membership club. According to this plan, which was promoted by Booker Whatley in the early 1980's, a grower could maintain small farm profits by selling low cost memberships to customers who then were allowed to harvest crops a
Re: FW: CSA's
Hey Allan, It's an interesting discussion about the history of CSA but we need to constantly remember that CSA is an evolving concept. (in fact, if I had my druthers I would completely do away with the term CSA because it is so unintuitive and because of so much of the baggage it carries from the past). I think a lot of the original theory of CSA was, in practice, extremely anti-farmer. I know when I started out managing a CSA a decade ago our farmer was not paid a liveable wage but she was expected to work from sun up to sun down and then some. My second year, the foundation that owned the farm where we operated out of told me that I would have to take over another CSA because their farmer had quit (she was also paid an unliveable wage). This second CSA was structured along textbook lines with a controlling core group etc and was Waldorf school based. At the time, its ten or so year history was marred with fights with farmers and landowners. Their interest was providing low cost wholesome vegetables for their subscribers. But really could care less about the farmers or farm workers, or for that matter, landowners I think the future of CSA is really farmer owned and lead subscription vegetables. These have to be farmers that are very much in touch with the interests and needs of their subscriber. The old CSA model assumed, in large part, that farming wasn't a profession. that farm work wasn't skilled, and that the doctor and lawyer subscribers could do the work and give the orders as well as the farmer could. That they would just hire a farmer as they hired a house cleaner. (do I sound bitter? I don't mean to, just the facts). I, also think Allan made a good point about farms that sell to markets and then operate a CSA. I wouldn't do it. Don't support it, and don't think its a good idea. Several people around here do, though, besides Blue Ridge. The drawbacks are: 1. they are inclined to only grow vegetables that sell at market. If there isn't a good market, market for it (say fennel or tomatillos) they aren't inclined to grow much or any of the non 'American' vegetables. 2. they look at their shares in reference to how much it will bring at market. There is a CSA around here, run by a good woman who prides herself on making sure her CSA basket is worth $17 and some cents per week. She gets this price by how much those vegetables are selling at her roadside market. 3. Finally, what Allen said, if there is only so much of something, and I can sell all of it at a premium price at market, the shareholders aren't going to get any. I do like the one aspect of the 'old time' CSA theory in that the subscribers share in the success and failure of the program. This means, no outside sales. What you grow goes to your subscribers. This works to make the subscribers feel more part of the farm, and it does work to educate the people who eat the food about what farming is (though I just got an e-mail from a last year subscriber who was looking over this year's seed list and said 'Oh, I'm glad you are growing corn this year.' Where last year I said over and over and over that 'the corn is planted on unirrigated land and we are having a major drought. This means, the corn isn't growing.' Oh well.
Re: CSA Retention rates
The 'box scheme' version of CSA, the one tht extension advocates, where crops from various farms are pulled together and delivered to the shareholders would prefer to hire a driver who wasn't associated with ANY of the farms, thereby completing the separation of farmer and consumer. Just like Safeway, eh? Our county farm development guy pushed a version of this for people doing farmers markets in DC. For whatever reason, it didn't work. We talked about it as a CSA model at several of our county small farmer meetings but couldn't really make it work on a large scale. (there is a CSA in Fredricksburg that is made up of a group of farmers - I don't know how successfully). Over the past several years I have had neighboring farmers grow crops that I didn't have room for or that they specialized in. I don't like it. I can't account to my subscribers for what they are doing. We do an add on fruit share. The fruit is grown by a couple out by Shenandoah park. As Allan implies in his comment, the separation of the farmer from the eater (even once removed like that) isn't all that comfortable. If the subscriber doesn't like a week's apples I can't explain it, I can only say 'I'll check what went wrong with the person that did grow them.'
Re: CSA Retention rates
Chris has a real point about the mental health of the farmer being very important for the attitude of the shareholder. Back in the beginning when I couldn't (didn't) hire enough help or had poor help I would be stressed by the end of the season and you could see it in the shareholders. They would feel it and respond accordingly to the program. The past several years when I'm making decent money and don't have to work my self to exhaustion, the shareholders are also happier.
Re: Evolving meaning of CSA
A problem JUST FOOD CSA helps to support family farms that are struggling to stay in business, while providing city people, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, with access to good, affordable produce. The low-income aspect of a csa subsciber is very very problematic. It is real hard to get people who don't have money to pay money they don't have for a csa subscription. Unfortunately, the minimal income hurdle is a problem for CSA's and low income neighborhoods. Various programs try to focus on low-income neighborhoods, but it is hard. One of the programs in the DC area that does this applies for grants and then with the foundation and donation money buys shares from CSA farmers which are then sold in low-income neighborhoods at prices lower than the farmer could sell them.
Re: CSA Retention rates
I have now been in the CSA business for over a decade in the DC area and have spent much of the time wondering what I should expect as a satisfactory renewal rate. and what made people renew or not. My observations (these are all pretty obvious, once said) production does matter. this is very obvious but renewal rates are higher after a successful growing season than after a poor one. But it accounts, at the most, for only a 10% increase. Community is important. Generally speaking (this isn't true for everyone) the more a subscriber feels part of the program, the more likely they are to renew. The years we turn out a regular newsletter, have get together's at the farm, shareholders gleaning the fields, get shareholders to meet each other, those are the years the renewal rate is higher (but not much - less than 5%). -in DC the idea of a working share is mostly unworkable. Subscribers work long days, traffic is terrible and even driving to our farm which is on the edge of the suburbs (40 miles from the city) takes over an hour. CSA's in our area that have a work share have very poor renewal rates and often pass quickly into history- Consistency. A CSA must be run like a business if it is to keep its shareholders. Think of a restaurant, even your favorite restaurant. How many times of poor service or poor food does it take to stop you from coming back, even if you have been going weekly for years. A CSA must be concerned about the details. Deliveries on time, vegetables presented in very good conditions, Few crop failures, Availability of the crops that people want (ie you need to spend special attention on things like broccoli and tomatoes- believe it or not, the vast majority of people judge the success of a CSA on the plentifulness of those two crops more than any others). A subscriber might understand that spotted wilt wiped out your tomato plants but they more than likely will not renew if their life revolves around tomatoes. Length of existence of a well run program. So, if the program produces regularly and works on community, the longer it is around, the higher the renewal rate. This is basically the winnowing process. CSA's sound neat but the truth is they aren't for everyone. Not everyone cooks (especially in the DC area) at home enough to use all the vegetables a CSA provides. Each year, though, our core group of renewers increases. Which means, each year we add a few more people who from experience actually match up well with a CSA lifestyle and don't just think that they will. I imagine this is true for the long lived CSA's around the country. They have built up a core of people who actually eat at home and cook. and like to eat vegetables. There are also a few outside factors that affect renewal rates. Things like the local economy and who your market is. In DC we have a large transient community. People who come to DC to work for the government, lobby organizations or non profits. A number of these people know CSA's back home and sign up. Over the years, especially in the beginning, this was the core of our subscribers. But, the problem is, they don't stay long. They do their 2 or 3 years in DC, decide its better back home and leave. This all said, I have experience starting two CSA's -- someone else's, a non profit organization, and our own. Both showed very similar renewal rate lines. Production, for a first year CSA is of course going to be spottier than a well established CSA. The growers haven't figured out the kinks of their land, their delivery system, what crops their particular subscribers like more of, how many of each and just the logistics of growing 50 plus crops a season. First year CSA's (in the DC area), I've observed, usually have renewal reates in the 20-30 percent range. But, if everything goes right, the CSA is operated in a professional, consistent manner, the renewal rate should go up each year. Our list of long time subscribers grows longer each year. I think our renewal rate was well over 40 percent last year and from all indications will be over 50 percent this year. These are, in part, the people who we know when they were single, remembered when they got married, when their first child was born and are amazed at how large their children are now. Our CSA is part of their life. I imagine, if we keep doing this for another decade (or two) then we will have gotten to the point where are subscriber list is filled up with these people. One other point, when I managed the non profit program we had to take into our program the longest lasting CSA in the DC area. Because of a number of factors (most of them mentioned above) their renewal rate which had been high in the past was rapidly crashiing. In other words, just like a restaurant, no matter how long it has been established, poor management can destroy the loyal customer base.
Re: chickens
Allan wrote- I'd love to find a cure for foxes! The answer -a Great Pyrenees
irradiated meat
This is from Public Citizen. I went into our local Giant this weekend and there it was in its little plastic box -irradiated ground meat, along with a brochure telling just how wholesome food is that has been 'cold pasteurized'. Yum-yum. Except the meat had a very strange color to it, though the brochure did assure me that the color of meat doesn't reflect its taste, nutrition of safety. I wasn't inclined to buy any of the stuff to see if their claims were true. Public Citizen's fact sheet doesn't say it but one of the real reasons the meat industry is turning to irradiation (besides to increase shelf life) is to cover up the unsanitary nature of factory farms and their associated fast moving factory type slaughterhouses and processing plants. (from Public Citizen) Giant Food Inc. is the first supermarket chain in the DC area to carry irradiated ground beef. They attempt to calm consumer anxiety about irradiation, but despite their marketing claims, consumers should be wary. Facts on Irradiation ** Irradiation exposes food to a dose of ionizing radiation that is equivalent to millions of chest x-rays. ** Irradiation destroys vitamins, essential fatty acids and other nutrients in food. ** Irradiation disrupts the chemical composition of everything - not just harmful bacteria. It creates chemicals called "radiolytic products" that do not occur naturally in food and that the FDA has never studied for safety. ** Research dating to the 1950s has revealed a wide range of problems in animals that ate irradiated food, including premature death, a rare form of cancer, stillbirths, genetic damage, organ malfunctions, low weight gain and vitamin deficiencies. ** Irradiation can kill most bacteria in food, but does not remove the feces and other filth that carries this bacteria, thereby masking and encouraging filthy conditions in slaughterhouses and food processing plants. What Can You Do? ** Vote with your food dollars - don't buy irradiated ground beef! ** Write to Giant and tell them to stop carrying irradiated meat and keep imported irradiated fruits and vegetables off their shelves! (for a sample letter go to http://www.citizen.org/cmep/foodsafety/food_irrad/articles.cfm?ID=8367 ) ** Call 888-4-MyGiant (DC, MD, VA) or 888-MySuperG (DE, NJ) to voice your views. ** Write a letter to the editor explaining the problems with irradiated food! ** Flyer at a local store to raise awareness in your community! (contact Public Citizen at 202-546-4996 for flyers)
